Jan Hus

gigatos | May 28, 2022

Post Views: 11

Summary

Jan Hus (Husinec, c. 1371 – Constance, July 6, 1415) was a Bohemian theologian and religious reformer and rector at Charles University in Prague. He promoted a religious movement based on the ideas of John Wycliffe, and his followers became known as Hussites. Excommunicated in 1411 from the Catholic Church and condemned by the Council of Constance, he was burned at the stake.

A poor young student, he came to Prague in 1390 to study at the University, where the ferments of the Bohemian reform movement-founded 20 years earlier outside the University but subject to a crackdown that led to the closure of the preachers” school opened by Jan Milič (1320

In 1393 Hus obtained a bachelor”s degree in philosophy, in 1395 he graduated magister in artibus, and in 1398 he began teaching Philosophy at the same Prague University; ordained a priest in 1400, he continued to study Theology with Stanislaus of Znojmo and from March 1402 preached for the first time in the “Bethlehem Chapel.” It was one of his opponents, the Augustinian from Nuremberg, Oswald Reinlein, who left a record of his activity: “His sermons were attended by almost the entire population of Prague; in the Chapel of Bethlehem he preached twice on feast days and again twice during Lent. On all other days he gave two lectures and three talks on Sundays. For the poor who were recommended to him Hus asked for alms from his acquaintances; he used to invite teachers to the table and receive every visitor with love and kindness.”

In the early years Hus merely reported what was contained in the Holy Scriptures, but before long he began, in his sermons, to call for a reform of church customs.

Also read, biographies – Karl Liebknecht

Heir of Wyclif

Hus became acquainted with the works of Wyclif (ca 1329 – 1384) around 1398. The English doctor evangelicus considered the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy deeply corrupt and, having no faith in the possibilities of self-reform by ecclesiastical authorities, hoped that a reform of the Church could be achieved through an initiative of governments; condemned at the Council of London in 1382, his writings were also banned by the University of Prague in 1403.

Jan Hus agreed in almost all respects with Wycliff (except with regard to the doctrine of the Eucharist, where he maintained the orthodox view of transubstantiation) and, more so, so did the Bohemian reformers, Stanislaus of Znojmo and Stephen Páleč, who in fact, summoned to Bologna to exonerate themselves for their support of the Wycliffian heresy, were imprisoned and beaten on the orders of Cardinal Baldassarre Cossa, the future pope but later considered antipope, John XXIII. After that experience, Páleč promptly re-entered the ranks of Roman Orthodoxy and later became one of Hus”s accusers.

The Church was then divided by the Western Schism, with one pope, Benedict XIII, in Avignon and another, Gregory XII, in Rome, elected in 1406. To end the split, some cardinals from the two factions planned to call a council in Pisa that would jointly elect a new pope, ending the division.

Faced with the schism, Hus was in favor of maintaining a position of neutrality, waiting for the future council to settle the schism. A similar attitude was decided upon by Bohemian King Wenceslas IV, unlike Archbishop Zajíc Zbynek of Prague, who insisted on the need to obey the pope of Rome. Suspecting in Hus a follower of Wyclif, the archbishop formed a commission, chaired by the inquisitor Maurice Rvačka, to assess his orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, a reform of the administration of the University of Prague, decided by King Wenceslas, overturned the rule in force until then, in which among the national elements represented there, the German one was entitled to three votes and each other to one, now awarding three votes to the Bohemian national element and one to each other. As a result of this reform, in May 1409 German faculty and students left Prague to settle mainly in Leipzig, where a new university was founded, while in October, thanks to the new statutes, the Bohemian Hus could be elected rector of the University of Prague.

Meanwhile, the Council of Pisa had concluded on June 26, 1409, with the election of a new pope, Alexander V, who was not recognized, however, by all of Christendom, so that as many as three popes were now in office. In December, Alexander V signed the bull that, after again condemning Wyclif”s writings, authorized the archbishop of Prague to ban Hus from preaching, a notification communicated to him only in June 1410, when Alexander V had already died and was succeeded by John XXIII

Hus decided not to obey and to appeal to the pope; he addressed the faithful in Bethlehem Chapel, “The late pope, about whom I could not tell whether he is in heaven or hell, wrote in his scrolls against the writings of Wyclif in which there are many good things as well. I have appealed and will appeal again I must preach even if one day I have to leave the country or die in prison. For the popes may lie but the Lord does not lie.”

Summoned to Rome to justify his position, Hus refused with the protection of the king who, aspiring to the imperial office, wanted to settle the theological dispute in order to show his authority in both civil and religious issues. Archbishop Zbynek banished Hus in vain on March 15, 1411, and just as vainly launched the interdict on Prague on June 8: King Wenceslas entrusted an arbitration panel with the dispute between the archbishop and Hus, and the arbitration ruled that the ban and interdict be remitted and that Hus was not required to appear in Rome.

Also read, battles – Battle of Hastings

The market for indulgences

Meanwhile, John XXIII had proclaimed a “holy war” against Ladislaus, King of Naples, a supporter of Gregory XII, and began collecting the necessary funds for the war through the sale of indulgences, that is, the remission of temporal punishments in exchange for money. The Bohemian king also supported the papal initiative, since a percentage of the proceeds would end up in the state coffers.

The protests of Hus, who considered any holy war incompatible with the Gospel message, Jerome of Prague and many citizens were suppressed; Stephen Páleč himself, who had become a doctor of theology at the University, urged the king to suppress the protest; three young men were convicted and beheaded.

Hus went further: he supported Wyclif”s thesis that a preacher could preach without the bishop”s permission, since the duty to proclaim the Gospel is a commandment of Christ. Excommunicated at the end of July 1412, Cardinal Pietro Stefaneschi, who presided over the trial ordered by the Roman Curia, ordered his arrest and the demolition of Bethlehem Chapel; Cardinal João Afonso Esteves da Azambuja brought the act of excommunication to Prague, which was promulgated at the synod of the Prague diocese on October 18, 1412.

Also read, biographies – Philip Guston

The appeal to Christ

In response, Hus had already displayed, on Oct. 12, on the Prague bridge near the archbishop”s palace, his “appeal to Christ,” addressed by “Jan Hus from Husinec, master and bachelor trained in theology at the illustrious University of Prague, priest and titular preacher of the Chapel known as Bethlehem to Jesus Christ, the righteous judge who knows, protects, judges, reveals and unfailingly crowns the righteous cause of everyone.”

He emphasized the legitimacy of his appeal “for the unjust sentence and excommunication imposed on me by the pontiffs, scribes, Pharisees, and judges installed on the chair of Moses as the holy and great patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom appealed the sentence of two Councils of bishops and clerics and as well as the bishops, I hope blessed, Andrew of Prague and Robert of Lincoln appealed against the pope”s sentence.”

He recalled that, when summoned, he did not show up in Rome because “Along the way, pitfalls were set for me everywhere, and the danger I ran from others made me cautious,” citing the treatment in Bologna of his proxies Stanislaus of Znojmo and Stephen Páleč, and mentioned the concordat reached with Archbishop Zbynek of Prague, to whom “not a single heretic was known in the entire kingdom of Bohemia, nor in the city of Prague and the Moravian Margraviate.”

He concluded how, in his view, “all the ancient divine laws of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the canonical laws, dispose that judges should visit places where a crime is said to have been committed and there examine the accusation made they should turn to those who know the conduct of the accused who are neither malicious nor jealous of him since the accused or accused should have safe and free access to the place of justice and the judge, like the witnesses, should not be his enemies: it is therefore clear that these conditions were not in place for me to appear in court.”

Also read, history – Greco-Persian Wars

The Council of Constance

When ordered by the king not to preach, he at first obeyed but a few weeks later resumed his preaching in the countries of Bohemia. In 1413 he concluded what remains his best-known writing, De ecclesia, and wrote On Simony and the sermon collection Postilla.

After the failure of the Council of Pisa in 1409, Hungary”s King Sigismund of Luxembourg (who would later be crowned King of the Romans on November 8, 1414) convened a new council on October 30, 1413, to be held in Constance on November 1, 1414, which would address the problem of Church unity by electing a new pope, and which would combat ecclesiastical corruption and put an end to doctrinal disputes, including addressing the Hus case. For this purpose Hus was urged to reach Constance, with a guarantee of safety. Hus left for Constance on October 11, stopping in Nuremberg, Ulm and Biberach, and arriving in the German city on November 3.

On November 27, invited to a friendly meeting by Cardinals Pierre d”Ailly, Ottone Colonna, soon to be Pope Martin V, Guillaume Fillastre and Francesco Zabarella, he was immediately arrested and imprisoned by them. In prison, on March 4, 1415, he finished writing a pamphlet dedicated to his jailer, De matrimonio ad Robertum.

On March 20, John XXIII, on whom accusations of corruption were insistent, fled Constance and was declared a simoniac, while the second pope, Gregory XII, resigned of his own accord; as for the third pope, Benedict XIII, he would later be deposed by the council on July 26, 1417 as a schismatic and heretic.

Also read, civilizations – Republic of Venice

The process

In April Hus”s disciple Jerome of Prague arrived in Constance to obtain from Sigismund the release of his master, but the Council responded with a warrant for his arrest; Jerome escaped, but was arrested at the Bavarian border: he was to be burned at the stake on May 30, 1416.

On May 18, 1415, Hus was ordered to retract his statements, which were considered heretical; he obtained a public audience, to be held on June 5, where he could demonstrate the orthodoxy of his doctrines, but was prevented from speaking. Questioned in the following days, in the presence of Sigismund, by Cardinals Zabarella and d”Ailly, who challenged him on a number of theses, notably that a king, pope or bishop in mortal sin forfeits their office and that of the dubious need for a visible head of the Church, since Christ alone is at the head of the Christian community, he replied that with the deposition of John XXIII the Church continued to be governed by Christ and refused to abjure.

The charges against Jan Hus

On June 18, 1415, the Council of Constance ratified a list of 30 charges against Hus, propositions considered heretical taken from three of his works, De ecclesia, Contra Stephanum Palec and Contra Stanislaum de Znoyma, giving him two days to dispute them. The charges and, in italics in parentheses, Hus”s notes are given:

For Hus, Christ alone is the head of the universal church; referring to Augustine, (Retractationes, I, 21, 1) and Pseudo-Augustine (Questiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 75) in De ecclesia Hus wrote “that Christ intended to found the whole church on the person of Peter is contradicted by faith in the Gospel, Augustine”s argumentation and reason.” Augustine had written that “Tu es Petrus (Mt, 16, 18-19)” meant “I will build my church on top of what was confessed by Peter when he said ”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”” In fact Peter was not told “You are the stone” but “You are Peter.” Instead, the stone was the Christ confessed by Simon” (“Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam,” where the demonstrative hanc refers precisely to Christ). Augustine”s interpretation was soon abandoned, however, and would be taken up by John Wyclif, Hus, and later by Luther and other Protestant reformers.

Hus pointed out in his June 8, 1415 hearing at the Council of Constance that those priests “reason as unbelievers because they lack faith formed by charity and now have a dead faith.”

Taken from the De ecclesia, except for the last statement “not even the Roman pontiff ” which does not exist in either the De ecclesia or any other text by Hus.

For Hus there were several Christian churches, and the Roman one is only one of them.

Taken from De ecclesia, which in turn takes it from Wyclif”s De potestate papae.

It was an episode that took place in 1413: the eight doctors of the University of Prague considered the church to consist of a head, the pope, and a body, the college of cardinals; for them, the church was infallible and of authority established the authentic meaning of the Scriptures.

The article, taken from De ecclesia, is a quotation from Wyclif”s De officio regis. Hus distinguishes three types of obedience: “spiritual” obedience to God”s law, “secular” obedience to civil laws, and “ecclesiastical” obedience to church precepts that have no basis in Scripture.

Taken from De ecclesia, Hus recalled his passage from Luke 11:34: “If your eye-your intention-is sound, not depraved by sin, your body-all your deeds-is also enlightened, pure in the sight of God.”

Hus justified his disobedience by the pre-eminence given to God rather than men: the Christian has the right to judge whether a church order came from God rather than men.

Taken from Contra Stephanum Páleč, where Hus quoted Paul, Romans 8:35, 8:38, 8:39.

Taken from Contra Stephanum Páleč; the issue consisted of whether an evil pope remains pope because his office is independent of the person”s character-as Paleč and the defenders of papal prerogatives argued-or whether an evil pope cannot be considered pope and the decision of the Council of Constance to depose John XXIII was legitimate. Hus argues for the second hypothesis.

Here Hus was referring to the deposition of John XXIII, deposed by the Council itself for unworthiness, although his election had been legitimate.

In fact, Hus claimed that 5 of Wyclif”s 45 propositions condemned by the Council of Constance on May 4, 1415 were orthodox.

By “Agnes,” Hus refers to the “papess Joan,” whose legend was then still considered historical fact.

Taken from Hus”s Contra Stanislaum, like the next two indictments.

Peter Mladonovic”s Report states that when, on June 8, 1415, this proposition was read in the Council”s assize, those present mocked Hus, accusing him of making prophecies. Hus responded by arguing that “at the time of the apostles the church was governed infinitely better than now. What prevents Christ from ruling it better even now, without those monstrous leaders we have now had, through his true disciples? See! Now we have no leaders, yet Christ does not cease to rule his church.”

The proposition, taken from Hus” Contra Stephanum Páleč, belonged to those of Wyclif condemned by the Council but was considered correct by Hus.

Also read, biographies – Nathaniel Hawthorne

The judgment

On June 23, he wrote from prison to his friend John of Chlum: “You should know that Páleč insinuated that I should not fear the shame of abjuration, but instead consider the benefit that would come from it. And I answered him, ”Is it more shameful to be condemned and burned than to abjure?” In what way could I fear shame? But tell me your opinion: what would you do if you were certain that you had not incurred in the errors imputed to you? Would you abjure?” He answered, “It is difficult.” And he began to cry.”

On July 5 he wrote to his Bohemian friends, “If they would give me pen and paper, with God”s help, I would also answer in writing: I, Jan Hus, servant of Jesus Christ in hope, do not intend to declare that every article gleaned from my writings is erroneous, lest I condemn the sayings of the sacred Scriptures and especially Augustine.”

The next day, in the cathedral of Constance, he was found guilty. The Relatio de Magistro Johanne Hus, compiled by Peter Mladonovic, a witness to that dramatic day, vividly reports the events.

“A table-like stage was erected in the middle of the assembly and the church. A kind of pedestal was placed on it, on which the vestments, chasuble for the mass, and priestly attire were arranged specially to proceed with the undressing of Master Jan Hus. Thus, when he was led into the church near the stage, he fell to his knees and prayed for a long time. At the same time, the bishop of Lodi came up to the pulpit and delivered a sermon on heresies.”

The papal reviewer, Bernard of Wildungen, then read the charges extracted from his writings, to which Hus tried to reply, but was ordered to remain silent. The indictments extracted from the statements made by the witnesses heard at the trial were then read; “among these articles was one according to which, after the consecration of the host, material bread or the substance of bread remains on the altar. There was also one whereby a priest in mortal sin cannot perform transubstantiation, nor consecrate, nor baptize.” Hus managed to answer that he had “never claimed, taught or preached that in the sacrament of the altar, after consecration, material bread remains.”

They also accused him of claiming that he was, he, “the fourth person of the Deity. They attempted to substantiate this accusation by citing a certain doctor. But the teacher shouted, “Name the doctor who deposed against me!” To which, the bishop who was reading the thing replied, ”There is no need to name him, here and now.””

His appeal to Christ and his having, excommunicated, continued to preach was then condemned. The Italian bishop of Concordia then read of his condemnation at the stake, along with all his writings. “As the reading of the sentence proceeded, he listened to it on his knees and in prayer with his eyes raised to heaven ”Lord Jesus Christ, I implore you, forgive all my enemies for your name”s sake. You know that they have accused me falsely, that they have produced false witnesses, that they have orchestrated false charges against me. Forgive them, by Your boundless mercy.””

Clad in sacred vestments, he was invited to recant, but refused. Descending from the stage, “the bishops immediately began to undress him. First they took the chalice out of his hand, pronouncing this anathema: ”O cursed Judas, because you have forsaken the way of peace and trodden the paths of the Jews, we take away this cup of redemption from you,” and so on and so forth, each time they took away one of his vestments, such as the stole, chasuble and all, they pronounced an appropriate anathema. To which he replied that he accepted those humiliations with a meek and glad heart for the sake of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Having cancelled his tonsure, they placed on his head a round paper crown, about 45 centimeters high, with three painted devils and the inscription, “This is a heresiarch.” “At this point the king said to Duke Lodovico, son of the late Clement of Bavaria, who was standing in front of him at that moment, holding the globe with the cross, “Go, take him into custody!” And he received the master into custody and in turn gave him into the hands of his tormentors so that he might be led to his death.”

Also read, biographies – Constantine I of Greece

The burning

Led out of the church, the procession passed the cemetery where his books were being burned, and he smiled at that spectacle. Along the way, “he urged the bystanders and those who followed him not to believe that he was going to die because of the errors falsely attributed to him and supported by the false testimony of his worst opponents. Almost all the inhabitants of that city accompanied him in arms to die.”

Arriving at the place of torture, which was in a meadow surrounded by gardens-now corresponding to the Alten Graben Strasse-he knelt down, and as he prayed, “that scandalous crown, depicting the three demons, fell from his head, and having noticed it, he smiled. Some of the mercenary soldiers, who were standing around there, said, ”Put it back on him; let him be burned with the demons his lords whom he served on earth.””

Undressed, his hands tied behind his back, he was tied to a pole with ropes and with a chain around his neck. They put two large bundles of wood mixed with straw under his feet and others around his body up to his chin. Exhorted again to recant, “lifting up his eyes to heaven, he replied aloud, “God is my witness that I never taught the things that are falsely attributed to me and of which false witnesses accuse me. He knows that the dominant intention of my preaching and of all my deeds and writings was only aimed at snatching men from sin. And today I am ready to die gladly.””

Then the stake was lit. Hus began to sing, one after another, two hymns “but as he began to sing the third hymn, a gust of wind covered his face with flames. And so, praying inwardly, barely moving his lips and shaking his head, he expired in the Lord. Before he died, as he prayed in silence, he seemed to stammer just long enough to recite the ”Our Father” two or three times.”

Having consumed the wood and ropes by fire, “the remains of that body remained in chains hanging by the neck; then the executioners pulled down the toasted limbs and pole. They burned them further, bringing more wood to the fire from a third load. Then, walking round and round, they broke the bones with sticks to make them burn faster. When they found the head, they chopped it up with clubs and threw it on the fire. When they found the heart in the midst of the entrails, after sharpening a stick like a skewer, they stabbed it on the point and took special care to roast and consume it, poking it with spears, until it was reduced to ashes.”

They also burned shoes and clothes so that they could not serve as relics, “they loaded all the ashes onto a wagon and threw them into the Rhine that flowed nearby.”

Before his execution Hus reportedly declared, “Today you burn a weak goose, but from the ashes a swan will rise” (Hus, in fact, means “goose” in Czech). Later hagiographers understood this phrase as a premonition of Luther”s coming and thus assigned the swan as a symbol to Luther. Johannes Bugenhagen quoted this reference in his funeral address he gave in Luther”s honor on February 22, 1546, in Wittenberg Castle Church: “You can burn a goose, but in a hundred years a swan will come that you will not be able to burn.” In 1566 the line was taken up by Luther”s first biographer, Johannes Mathesius, as one of the authentic prophecies demonstrating the divine inspiration of Luther”s mission.

The truth

The central element of Hus” thought lies in the notion of truth. A realist in the sense of scholastic philosophy-truth is not an opinion, a concept existing solely in the human intellect, but has a reality independent of man, it is the reality of things-as a Christian, for Hus truth is the testimony of Christ who, as God incarnate, as man, is knowable by man. So truth is the testimony of Christ, recorded in the Scriptures; but Hus specified that the Christian must remain constant in faith and “in the knowledge of this threefold truth: first, that which is evidently contained in Scripture, then that which was touched by infallible reason, and finally that which the Christian made his own from his own personal experience. Outside of that truth nothing is to be affirmed or recognized as true.”

It seems that the three sources of truth thus listed are not conceived in contradiction by Hus, for whom faith in Christ should find confirmation in reason and this in each person”s experience; the truth remains unique but can be understood by anyone: there are no men who are its repositories and it cannot contradict each person”s conduct of life. Thus Christ”s life is exemplary because it is an expression of the truth he witnessed and died for expressing it, so to defend the truth each person can sacrifice his own life.

Lack of truth is not mere error but for Hus is falsehood, and the struggle against falsehood is an affirmation of both the true and the just, for truth can only be justice; here is the revolutionary root that will be grasped by his followers: one must give one”s life to defend the truth and thus affirm justice; this element must be combined with the conception of the Church, taken up by Wyclif, as a collection of all the elect, the predestined, who, subject to Hus” free will, are such insofar as they gain their salvation from Christ, and not from the men who claim to represent him.

Also read, important-events – Cultural Revolution

The influence of Wyclif

Hus” adherence to Wyclif”s theories appears in his Commentary on the Sentences, where he accepted the Englishman”s philosophical realism in contrast to the nominalist orientation of the Prague theologians. But he differed in the doctrine of the Eucharist where, despite accusations made against him by the inquisitors, his interpretation was orthodox, whereas Wyclif denied transubstantiation and asserted that the bread remains as such in the consecration, and if the Englishman argued for the absolute illegitimacy of indulgences, Hus merely denounced their abuse.

Instead, of Wyclif he shared his denunciation of the state the church was in, the corruption of the ecclesiastics and their claim to be unquestionable by the lay faithful. In his treatise De ecclesia he showed the separation existing between the hierarchical and institutional church and the community of Christians united by faith and the observance of divine precepts: the latter, called universitas praedestinatorum, was for Hus the true holy and catholic church.

Also read, biographies – Margaret of Anjou

The De ecclesia

Begun writing in Prague in 1412, it was finished around May 1413 during his time away from Prague: sent to the capital to obtain several copies, the treatise was circulated on June 8, 1413 from Bethlehem Chapel.

Christ is the head of the church and to him alone belongs the title of “supreme pontiff.” The universal church is the assembly of the predestined, whom we can distinguish only by their manner of life and actions: only those can be considered bishops or pontiffs. Those whose conduct does not conform to that of the apostles cannot be legitimate holders of ecclesiastical office and can and must be deposed; they are allowed to disobey and resist.

There are signs that show the unworthiness of the office held by ecclesiastics: “The first sign of the unworthiness of the pope is when, forgetting the law of God and the devout witnesses of the Gospel, he gives himself all to human traditions the second sign is when the pope and ecclesiastical prelates, abandoning the conversation of Christ, immerse themselves in worldly affairs. The third sign is when the pope puts the merchants of this world in charge of Christ”s ministries, and for the needs of worldly life, tarries poor churches.

The fourth sign is when, either by his command or because inept people are in charge of pastoral care, he deprives of the Word of God the souls he is supposed to save the killing and perdition of Christ”s sheep are the two worst sins, for the fact that vivification by grace and glorification of the sheep are their highest goods, to which killing and destruction are opposed it is clear that those who kill souls are ministers of the Antichrist and Satan.

From this it follows that to rebel against the pope who misleads is to obey Christ the Lord: which is frequently the case when it comes to measures affected by self-interest. Therefore I call the whole world to witness that the distribution of benefices by the pope everywhere sows mercenaries in the church, gives him occasion to exaggerate his vicarious power, to give too much value to worldly dignity, to want to flaunt a false sanctity.”

Also read, biographies – Jannis Kounellis

Tradition

Professor Thomas Garrigue Masaryk used Hus”s name in his speech at the University of Geneva on July 6, 1915, for the defense against Austria and in July 1917 for the title of the first troop corps of his legions in Russia.

Also read, civilizations – Vedic period

Bibliography in Italian

Sources